[Peace-discuss] Fw: Fw: Fwd: CNN HCR poll

[Laurie Solomon]

In this case, it does without the additional information - except as 
rhetoric or political propoganda.

With respect to your joke as a reply, it was a funny joke - too bad it was 
not an original by you rather than a quoted joke from another source.  It 
dopes, however, indicate  you have difficulty responding to anything without 
either a quotation from another source or a citation to another source.  Of 
course, Mamet's reply to the Banker is my reply to you.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:19 PM
To: "Laurie Solomon" <ls1000 at live.com>
Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw:  Fw:  Fwd: CNN HCR poll

> Inexact doesn't mean unusable, I think...
>
> On quotation:
>
> A beggar sitting on the sidewalk asked a passing banker for a dollar.
>
> "'Neither a borrower or a lender be,'" said the banker, wagging his 
> finger.
> "Shakespeare!"
>
> "'Fuck you,'" replied the bum. "Mamet!"
>
>
> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>> I would expect no less than this sort of academic pedantic response from 
>> an arrogant intellectual.  I am not going to get caught up in any sort of 
>> an intellectual philosophical pissing contest to see who can quote the 
>> most philosophers and cite the most statements from each of the quoted 
>> philosophers in support of one's position.  Obviously to me, you are not 
>> confident enough in your own articulations to say things in your own 
>> words but have to depend on the words of other  well known authorities 
>> and intellectuals with academic standing to articulate what you are 
>> trying to argue and use their standing as authorities to credential your 
>> positions.
>>
>> I may have a very bad and -some would say inarticulate - writing style 
>> and ability to express myself; but at least what I do say or write is in 
>> my own words and is not just a mere citing or quoting of others.
>>
>> My point which you seem to have avoided is that the use of terms like 
>> "liberal," "progressive," "good," "bad," etc. are umbrellas under which a 
>> whole variety of very different and contradictory things may hide.  This 
>> if a
>> poll says that x number of people say that something is "too liberal" and 
>> y
>> number of people say it is "too conservative" or "not liberal enough," we 
>> have no way of knowing if some of the individuals in those two groups are 
>> objecting to the exact same things for the exact same reasons but are 
>> classifying and calling those objections by different labels or if 
>> different individuals within the same group are saying something is "too 
>> libera,l" "not
>> liberal enough," or "too conservative" for very different and opposite 
>> reasons from each other.  The categorization process gives the appearance 
>> if similarity, identity, and stability among the members with respect to 
>> their use of the terms and the reasons for saying  that something is "too 
>> liberal" or "too conservative;"  Hence, we cannot draw any literal 
>> meaning or significance from the groupings except possible that x number 
>> of people in one group use the "too liberal" or the "too conservative" 
>> expressions to describe and categorize their complaints; and we certainly 
>> would be hard pressed to draw any reliable and valid  or predictable 
>> conclusions as to what
>> the people in those groups substantively think or would do individually 
>> or as
>> a group.  Thus, in a practical sense, this information is not very useful 
>> or
>> usable (except as rhetoric and for political marketing and propaganda
>> reasons) without further more detailed specifics and background 
>> information
>> as to the substantive content behind the umbrella typifications - e.g., 
>> why
>> the individuals see something as being too liberal or too conservative or 
>> not
>> liberal enough and what they see as being too liberal, not liberal 
>> enough, or
>> too conservative.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------- From: "C. G. 
>> Estabrook"
>> <galliher at illinois.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:54 PM To: "Laurie
>> Solomon" <ls1000 at live.com> Cc: "peace-discuss"
>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw:  Fwd: 
>> CNN
>> HCR poll
>>
>>> Yes.  We don't know what someone really means when s/he says black. Or
>>> white.
>>>
>>> "If I tell someone 'Stand roughly here'--may not this explanation work
>>> perfectly? And cannot every other one fail too? "But isn't it an inexact
>>> explanation?--Yes; why shouldn't we call it 'inexact'? Only let us
>>> understand what "inexact" means. For it does not mean 
>>> 'unusable'." --Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations I.88
>>>
>>> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is bull Carl.  Something can be seen as too liberal but still 
>>>>> find
>>>>> it acceptable considering other alternatives to favor it despite its 
>>>>> being too liberal for ones tastes and druthers.  We are again engaged
>>>>> in a semantics game.  In point of fact, it is pure speculation what 
>>>>> the
>>>>> findings of that poll really mean, what their significance is, or the
>>>>> sampling and polling methodology used was so as to determine what 
>>>>> might
>>>>> or might not be artifacts of the methods.  Can you or anyone else
>>>>> document and definespecifically what the respondents considered
>>>>> "liberal" to mean when answering questions that probably asked them to
>>>>> classify themselves in categories that the pollster labeled using the
>>>>> term liberal in the label in accordance with the pollsters definition
>>>>> and use of the term, which is left unspecified?
>>>>>
>>>>> The same can be said about polls and claims made as to the publics 
>>>>> position on the wars and on foreign policy.  Nowhere does anyone give
>>>>> or cite any specifics or evidence as to exactly what the respondents
>>>>> mean by "against the war" or "in support of the war" when they answer
>>>>> polls and interviews. Being in support or against something is not an
>>>>> all or nothing proposition; there are levels and degrees of support 
>>>>> and
>>>>> opposition as well as varying conditions under which differing 
>>>>> strength
>>>>> of feelings and degrees fo support or non-support apply.  It may be a
>>>>> black and white issue for you; but it probably is not for many of the
>>>>> unwashed populace. Again the same holds for the issues of racism,
>>>>> ethinc biases, religious intolerance, and sexist prejudices.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------- From: "C. G. 
>>>>> Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:44
>>>>> PM To: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> Cc: "Peace-discuss List" 
>>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: 
>>>>> CNN HCR poll
>>>>>
>>>>>> Come on, John.  Favor + too liberal is a contradiction (if it's "too
>>>>>> liberal," you don't favor it); favor + not liberal enough is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John W. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM, C. G. Estabrook 
>>>>>>> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glad you saw it.  At least this much & more was wanted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, by 52% of the sample.  But 82% wanted this much or LESS, 
>>>>>>> according to the poll you cited.  I'm still waiting for your point.
>>>>>>> Not that I place a great deal of trust in polls, or indeed in 
>>>>>>> "democracy" as we see it in practice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John W. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook 
>>>>>>> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CNN has a new poll on health care reform, taken over the weekend:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Results:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 39%   Favor 43%   Oppose, too liberal 13%   Oppose, not liberal 
>>>>>>> enough 5% No opinion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, in favor + not liberal enough = 52%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [From Doug Henwood at Left Business Observer.  --CGE]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, Favor + too liberal = 82%.  But I'm sure you have 
>>>>>>> a point somewhere.
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.